AREA PROFILE - Suffolk · 2016-11-07 · Area Profiles from Road Safety Analysis (RSA) provide overviews of road safety performance within specific local areas. This profile delivers

AREA PROFILE For Suffolk 2016

By Road Safety Analysis

Executive Summary

The analysis in this report is summarised in an interactive online dashboard, providing access to the trends,

comparisons and maps included in this document. The following is a very brief summary of the main findings.

The annual average rate of casualties amongst Suffolk residents is 7% below the national rate.

In 2015, there has been a 32% reduction in the number of Suffolk resident casualties since 2006 and a 15%

reduction since 2014.

In 2015, there has been a 41% reduction in the number of Suffolk residents killed or seriously injured in

road collisions since 2006 and a 20% reduction since 2014.

The annual average rate of pedal cycle casualties amongst Suffolk residents is 17% below the national rate.

The number of Suffolk child resident pedal cycle casualties has continued to decrease and has fallen by 65%

in 2015 since 2006.

The number of Suffolk adult resident pedal cycle casualties increased from 2006 to 2015 by 19%. However,

there was a reduction of 27% from 2014 to 2015.

The annual average rate of senior casualties amongst Suffolk residents is 10% below the national rate.

There has been fluctuation in the trend in of Suffolk resident senior casualties since 2006, although there

has been a 3% reduction since 2006 and a 15% since 2014.

Suffolk’s resident senior casualties are most likely to be injured as car drivers (58%).

The annual average rate of Suffolk residents who were involved in collisions as drivers is 9% lower than the

national rate.

There has been a 30% reduction in the number of Suffolk resident motor vehicle drivers since 2006 and a

14% reduction since 2014.

Suffolk’s motorcycle rate is 1% higher than the national rate but there has been a downward trend since

2009 and the number of Suffolk’s resident riders involved in injury collisions was 25% lower in 2015 than in

2006.

The rate for Suffolk’s young driver involvement in collisions is 30% above the national rate, however, there

has been a significant reduction of 48% fewer young drivers involved in collisions in 2015 than in 2006.

The rate of collisions per KM on Suffolk’s roads is 33% lower than the national rate. There has been a

downward trend in the numbers of collisions on Suffolk’s roads, with a 29% reduction from 2006 (and KSI

collisions down by 40%).

Suffolk’s rate per KM of urban road is 19% lower than the national rate and there has been a reduction of

32% since 2006.

Suffolk’s rate per KM of rural road is 13% lower than the national rate and there has been a reduction of

26% since 2006.

A forecasting function was used to determine confidence levels for the resident casualty trends for 2014 and 2015

to check if the reductions experienced by Suffolk’s residents were as expected. Forecasting was based on 2005 to

2013 data, as 2014 figures were close to or above the upper confidence bound and it appears to be an unusual year,

compared to the general trend. 2015, in contrast, appears to be back on the general trend with all road user groups

close to the forecast, apart from resident adult pedal cycle casualties (which are below the lower confidence bound).

It could be that there were fewer adult pedal cyclists from Suffolk riding in 2015 and this reduced crash involvement.

Given that the trends were based on Suffolk residents who could have been injured anywhere in the country, the

reductions in casualties are unlikely to be due to under-reporting (as this would involve more than one reporting

police force) and instead look to be a continued general downward trend. Given the forecasting, aside from adult

pedal cyclists, the reductions in 2015 are as expected.

Contents

1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 5

1.1 OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1.2 Aims and Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 5

1.1.3 Analytical Techniques ........................................................................................................................... 5

1.2 PROFILE CONFIGURATION .................................................................................................................................... 6

1.2.1 Structure ............................................................................................................................................... 6

1.2.2 Scope ..................................................................................................................................................... 6

2 RESIDENT RISK ................................................................................................................................................ 7

2.1 RESIDENT CASUALTIES ........................................................................................................................................ 7

2.1.1 All Resident Casualties .......................................................................................................................... 7

2.1.2 Resident Pedal Cyclist Casualties ........................................................................................................ 13

2.1.3 Senior Resident Casualties .................................................................................................................. 18

2.2 RESIDENT MOTOR VEHICLE USERS ...................................................................................................................... 25

2.2.1 All Resident Drivers and Riders involved in Collisions ......................................................................... 25

2.2.2 Resident Motorcyclists involved in Collisions ...................................................................................... 30

2.2.3 Young adult resident drivers involved in collisions .............................................................................. 34

3 ROAD NETWORK RISK .................................................................................................................................. 41

3.1 COLLISIONS ON ALL ROADS ................................................................................................................................. 41

3.1.1 Rates ................................................................................................................................................... 41

3.1.2 Comparisons ....................................................................................................................................... 42

3.1.3 Trends ................................................................................................................................................. 42

3.1.4 Casualty trends on all roads ................................................................................................................ 44

3.1.5 Contributory Factors ........................................................................................................................... 46

3.2 COLLISIONS ON ROADS BY ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................................. 54

3.2.1 Urban Roads ....................................................................................................................................... 54

3.2.2 Rural Roads ......................................................................................................................................... 58

4 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................................. 64

4.1 ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES .................................................................................................................................. 64

4.2 MOSAIC PUBLIC SECTOR ................................................................................................................................... 68

4.2.1 Complete list of Mosaic Types ............................................................................................................. 68

4.2.2 Profile and distribution for selected Mosaic Types ............................................................................. 70

4.3 DATA TABLES .................................................................................................................................................. 72

4.4 CONTRIBUTORY FACTOR GROUPINGS ................................................................................................................... 78

4.5 SUFFOLK MAP ................................................................................................................................................. 79

4.6 LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................... 80

AREA PROFILE 2016 – SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL

2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL PAGE | 5

1 Introduction

1.1 Overview

1.1.1 Background

Area Profiles from Road Safety Analysis (RSA) provide overviews of road safety performance within specific local

areas. This profile delivers detailed analysis and insight on all injury collisions reported to the police in Suffolk, as

well as casualties and drivers involved in collisions anywhere in Britain who reside in the Suffolk area.

Area Profile formats are modular, which affords the flexibility to select topics for inclusion to reflect local needs, and

allows each section of the report to be used independently if required. Profile design allows authorities to

understand general casualty and collision trends affecting their residents and roads, as well as selecting particular

topics based on local issues. Experts from RSA work with commissioning authorities to ensure that selected topics

provide an accurate and relevant assessment. After production of a first Area Profile, updates can be produced in

future years covering the entire document or selected existing sections, whilst new topics can also be introduced in

response to latest trends and concerns.

1.1.2 Aims and Objectives

The aim of this document is to provide a comprehensive profile of road safety issues affecting both Suffolk’s road

network and Suffolk’s residents, primarily using STATS19 collision data 1 and Mosaic socio-demographic

classification. Annual trends are presented and analysed for key road user groups, predominantly based on data

from the last five full years of available statistics but referring to older figures where appropriate.

RSA’s analysis tool MAST Online has also been used to investigate trends for Suffolk’s residents involved in road

collisions anywhere in the country, including socio-demographic profiling of casualties and drivers. MAST has been

used to allow comparison of Suffolk’s key road safety issues with those of comparator regions and national figures.

The aim is to allow Suffolk to assess its progress alongside other areas, and work together with neighbours to address

common issues.

1.1.3 Analytical Techniques

The analytical techniques employed throughout this Area Profile are detailed in the Analytical Techniques section

on page 64. Please refer to this section for information on the terminology and data sources used as well to

understand methodologies utilised and the structure and scope of the report.

1 For further information go to https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/road-accidents-and-safety-statistics-guidance

© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS PAGE | 6

INTR

OD

UC

TION

1.2 Profile Configuration

1.2.1 Structure

The Area Profile has been divided into separate analysis of key road user groups. The aim is to allow each section to

be used independently if required. This will also allow Suffolk County Council to update selected sections when

appropriate, without a requirement to update the entire document.

Section 2, starting on page 7, explores Resident Risk. Resident risk analysis includes examining all Suffolk’s resident

casualties and resident motor vehicle users in terms of rates, comparisons with other relevant authorities; residency

by small area; trends and socio-demographic analysis. Specific road user groups will also be analysed against these

measures. The focus of this section is on how the people of Suffolk are involved in collisions, rather than what

happens on local roads.

Section 3, starting on page 41, provides analysis of Road Network Risk. It also examines rates; comparisons; location

by small area; and trends on Suffolk’s roads. Breakdowns by type of road are also included in this section.

Section 4, starting on page 64, includes Appendices detailing all Mosaic Types and the profile and distribution of

specific Mosaic Types relevant to Suffolk. It also contains data tables for all analysis referred to in this Area Profile.

1.2.2 Scope

All figures included in this report are based on STATS 19 collision data. The residents section covers casualties and

motor vehicle users involved in collisions who are residents of Suffolk, regardless of where in Britain the collision

occurred. Resident analysis in this profile is based on the national STATS19 dataset as provided to RSA by the

Department for Transport for publication in MAST Online over the five year period between 2011 and 2015 inclusive.

For a more complete explanation, please refer to 4.1.1.1 on methodology for calculating resident risk.

In contrast, the road network section covers collisions which occurred on Suffolk’s roads, regardless of where those

involved reside. Network analysis is also based on the national STATS19 dataset over the five year period between

2011 and 2015 inclusive. For a more complete explanation, please refer to 4.1.1.2 on methodology for calculating

network collision risk.



2 Resident Risk

For information about the provenance and scope of data included in this section, please refer to Scope on page 6.

For an explanation of the methodologies employed throughout this section, please refer to 4.1.1.1 on page 64.

2.1 Resident Casualties

This section refers to all casualties who were residents of Suffolk at time of injury. For information about all casualties

on Suffolk’s roads, please refer to 3.1.4 on page 44.

2.1.1 All Resident Casualties

2.1.1.1 Rates

Figure 1 - Annual average resident casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population – Suffolk and comparator authorities

Figure 2 - Annual average resident casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population – Suffolk and districtsFigure 3 shows Suffolk’s resident

casualty rate compared to the national rate and to comparator authority rates. Figure 4 - Annual average resident casualties (2011-2015) per

100,000 population – Suffolk and districts

Figure 5 - Resident casualties home location by LSOA. Casualties per year per 100,000 population (2011-2015)Figure

6 shows the resident casualty rate for Suffolk and its districts. The resident casualty rate for Suffolk is 288.1 per

100,000 population.

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

350.0

Res

iden

t C

asu

alty

Rat

e

Figure 1 - Annual average resident casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population – Suffolk and comparator authorities

Figure 2 - Annual average resident casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population – Suffolk and districtsFigure 3 - Annual average resident

casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population – Suffolk and comparator authorities

© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS

RESID

ENT R

ISK

PAGE | 8

2.1.1.2 Comparisons

National

Suffolk’s resident casualty rate is 7% below the national rate. It has a higher rate than all comparator authorities

apart from Kent, although Dorset has a similar rate.

Internal

Within Suffolk, Ipswich has the highest rate (316.7) and St Edmundsbury has the lowest rate of 251.2. All other

district authorities have similar rates to the overall Suffolk rate.

Residency by Small Area

Figure 7 - Resident casualties home location by LSOA. Casualties per year per 100,000 population (2011-2015)

Figure 8 - Suffolk resident casualties by age group (2011-2015)Figure 9 shows the home location of Suffolk’s resident

casualties by LSOA. The thematic map is coloured by resident casualties per year per population of LSOA. Higher

resident casualty rates are scattered throughout Suffolk including parts of Ipswich, Iken, Blaxhall, South Cove,

Rushmere, Hulver, Bedfield, Iketshall, Stansfield, Wetheringsett and Finningham.

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

350.0

Res

iden

t C

asu

alty

Rat

e

Figure 4 - Annual average resident casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population – Suffolk and districts

Figure 5 - Resident casualties home location by LSOA. Casualties per year per 100,000 population (2011-2015)Figure 6 - Annual average

resident casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population – Suffolk and districts

2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL

RESID

ENT R

ISK

PAGE | 9

2.1.1.3 Trends

Figure 10 shows annual Suffolk resident casualty numbers by severity. This includes Suffolk residents injured

anywhere in the country. Also shown is a 3 year moving average trend line. Suffolk’s resident casualty numbers have

steadily reduced over the past decade. Although the rate of reduction has slowed in more recent years, in 2015

there has been a 15% reduction from 2014 and a 32% reduction from 2006. In 2015 there were 1,859 resident

casualties (28 fatal, 170 serious and 1,661 slight) compared to 2,192 in 2014. There has been a 20% reduction in KSI

from 2014 and a 41% reduction in KSI from 2006. Over the past five years, 13% of Suffolk’s resident casualties were

either killed or seriously injured.

Figure 7 - Resident casualties home location by LSOA. Casualties per year per 100,000 population (2011-2015)

Figure 8 - Suffolk resident casualties by age group (2011-2015)Figure 9 - Resident casualties home location by LSOA. Casualties per year per

100,000 population (2011-2015)


RESID

ENT R

ISK

PAGE | 10

Figure 10 - Suffolk resident casualties, by year and severity (2006-2015)

Resident casualties occurring in other areas

Eighty-two percent of Suffolk’s resident casualties between 2011 and 2015 were injured in Suffolk. This is above the

national average of 65% of residents involved in collisions in their home highway authority. Of the remaining 18% of

Suffolk resident casualties, the majority are involved in collisions in nearby highway authorities including Norfolk

(5%), Cambridgeshire (4%), Essex (4%) and Hertfordshire (1%).

2.1.1.4 Socio Demographic Analysis

Age

Figure 11 shows the numbers of resident casualties by age group. The age group with most resident casualties is the

16-24 group. Casualty numbers reduce as the resident age increases. The fewest resident casualties are aged 65 and

over, and aged under 16. Figure 12 shows resident casualty numbers by age group indexed by the population of

those age groups in Suffolk. There is also a national index value for comparison. The chart shows that 16-24 year

olds are over-represented as casualties when indexing based on population. It also shows that Suffolk’s 16-24 year

olds are over-represented compared to 16-24 year olds nationally. Residents in the 25-34 and 35-44 age groups are

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Res

iden

t C

asu

alti

es

KSI Slight Trend


RESID

ENT R

ISK

PAGE | 11

also over-represented when taking population in to account but are similarly over-represented compared to the

country as a whole. Residents aged under 16 and aged 55 and over are at a lower risk of being casualties.

Figure 12 - Resident casualties by age group, indexed by population (2011-2015)

Segmentation

Analysis of the Mosaic communities in which Suffolk’s resident casualties live provides an insight into those injured

in collisions. For an explanation of Mosaic Public Sector and how to understand the following chart, please refer to

4.1.1.1 on page 64.

41

264

156

121100

76

4548

201

152

121100

7251

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

<16 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

Ind

ex

Age Group

Suffolk GB

Figure 11 - Suffolk resident casualties by age group (2011-2015)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

<5 5-15 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+

Res

iden

t C

asu

alti

es

Age Group

Slight KSI


RESID

ENT R

ISK

PAGE | 12

Figure 13 - Suffolk resident casualties by Mosaic Type (2011-2015)

Figure 13 shows Suffolk’s resident casualties by the Mosaic Type of the postcode they live in. The red bars show the

index value based on the population of those Types living in Suffolk. The highest numbers of resident casualties

come from Local Focus (Type G28). This Type is also over-represented based on population.

Outlying Seniors (Type G27), Village Retirement (Type A04) and Satellite Settlers (Type G29) all have high numbers

of casualties but are not over-represented, based on the population of these Types living in Suffolk.

Rural Vogue (Type A01) and Midlife Stopgap (Type L52) contain a large number of resident casualties and are also

over-represented when population is taken into account. Whilst there are smaller numbers of Families with Needs

(Type M55), Renting a Room (Type L50) and Budget Generations (Type M53) injured on the roads, they are all over-

represented, given the number of people living in these communities in Suffolk.

Further information on the characteristics of some of these Mosaic Types and a thematic map showing areas where

these communities live can be found in 4.2.2 on page 70.

Deprivation

Figure 14 shows resident casualties by the IMD of the LSOA in which they reside. The chart shows that the largest

numbers of resident casualties live in some of the least deprived communities of Suffolk, (the less deprived 50%

decile) however, residents from these communities feature in collisions as expected, given the number of people

living in these communities (as shown by an index of 102). Residents of communities in the most deprived

communities are over-represented but there are fewer overall resident casualties from these areas.

133

104

8494

130119

75

96 99

104

122

138 135

92

106

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

G28 G27 A04 G29 A01 L52 F24 H34 H30 A02 M55 L50 M53 D15 H35

Res

iden

t C

asu

alti

es

Mosaic Type


RESID

ENT R

ISK

PAGE | 13

Rurality

Using the DfT’s rurality classification, 61% of Suffolk’s population live in urban LSOAs. In England and Wales, 82% of

the population live in urban LSOAs, so Suffolk has a significantly higher proportion of its population living in rural

areas. Sixty percent of Suffolk resident casualties live in urban LSOAs, a slight under-representation for urban

residents and consequently slight over-representation of rural residents. However, this does not take in to account

the annual distance travelled.

2.1.2 Resident Pedal Cyclist Casualties

This section refers to all pedal cyclist casualties who are residents of Suffolk. For information about all pedal cycle

casualties on Suffolk’s roads, please refer to 3.1.4.2 on page 45. For an explanation of the methodologies employed

throughout this section, please refer to 4.1.1.1 on page 64.

2.1.2.1 Rates

Figure 15 shows resident pedal cycle user casualty rates for Suffolk compared to the national rate and to comparator

authorities. Figure 16 shows rates for Suffolk and its district authorities.

120 119

109101

106102

96 9387

83

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

MostDeprived

10%

MoreDeprived

20%

MoreDeprived

30%

MoreDeprived

40%

MoreDeprived

50%

LessDeprived

50%

LessDeprived

40%

LessDeprived

30%

LessDeprived

20%

LeastDeprived

10%

Ind

ex b

y P

op

ula

tio

n

Res

iden

t C

asu

alti

es

IMD Decile

Figure 14 - Resident casualties by Index of Multiple Deprivation (2011-2015)


RESID

ENT R

ISK

PAGE | 14

Figure 15 - Annual average resident pedal cycle user casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population – Suffolk and comparator authorities

Figure 16 - Annual average resident pedal cycle user casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population – Suffolk and its districts

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

Res

iden

t P

edal

Cyc

le U

ser

Cas

ual

ty R

ate

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

Res

iden

t P

edal

Cyc

le U

ser

Cas

ual

ty R

ate


RESID

ENT R

ISK

PAGE | 15

2.1.2.2 Comparisons

National

Suffolk’s resident pedal cycle user casualty rate of 26.0 per 100,000 population is 17% lower than the national rate.

Suffolk has a higher rate than its seven comparator authorities with Warwickshire the nearest with a rate of 25.0.

Northamptonshire and Essex have the lowest rates.

Internal

Ipswich has the highest pedal cycle user casualty rate within Suffolk with a rate of 41.3 per 100,000 population.

Waveney also has a much higher rate than the overall Suffolk rate. Mid Suffolk and Babergh have the lowest rates

of 13.9 and 16.5 respectively.


Figure 17 shows Suffolk’s resident pedal cycle user casualties by home MSOA. The map is colour coded by the rate

of casualties from that MSOA per year per 100,000 population. The highest rates are found to the south of Ipswich,

in central Bury St Edmunds and in the outskirts of Lowestoft. There are also high rates to the north of Felixstowe,

south of Beccles, north Ipswich, the outskirts of Bury St Edmunds, in Nacton, Beccles and in Newmarket.

Figure 17 - Resident pedal cycle user casualties by MSOA. Annual average casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population


RESID

ENT R

ISK

PAGE | 16

2.1.2.3 Trends

Figure 18 shows Suffolk’s resident pedal cycle casualty numbers since 2006, by severity. Casualty numbers have

increased over the past decade, but they decreased considerably in 2015. Nationally, pedal cycle user casualty

numbers were also increasing by 2014 but they decreased in 2015. In 2015 there were a total of 165 pedal cycle user

casualties from Suffolk, which is an 10% decrease from 2006 and a 26% decrease from 2014. In the period 2011-

2015, 15% of pedal cycle user casualties were either killed or seriously injured.

Figure 18 - Suffolk resident pedal cycle user casualties, by year and severity (2006-2015)


Age

Figure 19 shows the trends for child pedal cycle user casualties from Suffolk whilst Figure 20 shows the same

information for adult pedal cycle user casualties. Child pedal cycle user casualty numbers are decreasing. In 2015

there were 22 child resident pedal cycle user casualties, a reduction of 65% from 2006. Adult resident pedal cycle

casualties have increased over the previous four years, but they have decreased in 2015 by 27% from 2014. Since

2006 the number of adult resident pedal cycle user casualties has increased by 19%.

0

50

100

150

200

250

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Res

iden

t P

edal

Cyc

le U

ser

Cas

ual

ties

KSI Slight Trend


RESID

ENT R

ISK

PAGE | 17

Figure 19 - Suffolk child resident pedal cycle user casualties, by year and severity (2006-2015)

Figure 20 - Suffolk adult resident pedal cycle user casualties, by year and severity (2006-2015)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Ch

ild R

esid

ent

Ped

al C

ycle

Use

r C

asu

alti

es

KSI Slight Trend

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Ad

ult

Res

iden

t P

edal

Cyc

le U

ser

Cas

ual

ties

KSI Slight Trend


RESID

ENT R

ISK

PAGE | 18

Segmentation

Analysis of the Mosaic communities in which Suffolk’s resident pedal cyclist casualties live provides an insight into

those injured in collisions. For an explanation of Mosaic Public Sector and how to understand the following chart,

please refer to 4.1.1.1 on page 64.

Figure 21 - Suffolk resident pedal cycle user casualties by Mosaic Type (2011-2015)

Figure 21 shows Suffolk’s resident pedal cycle casualties by the Mosaic Group of the postcode they live in. The red

bars show the index value based on the population of those Groups living in Suffolk. The highest numbers of resident

casualties come from Aspiring Homemakers (Group H). This Type is also over-represented based on population.

Transient Renters (Group L) also contain a high number of casualties and are significantly over-represented when

population is taken in to account.

Family Basics (Group M) contain a slightly lower number of resident casualties but this Group is over-represented

when population is taken in to account.

There are high numbers of casualties from Rural Reality (Group G) but these numbers are lower than expected based

on the population of this Group living in Suffolk.

2.1.3 Senior Resident Casualties

This section refers to all senior casualties who are residents of Suffolk. For an explanation of the methodologies

employed throughout this section, please refer to 4.1.1.1 on page 64.

114

161

148

59

106

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

H L M G F

Res

iden

t C

asu

alti

es

Mosaic Group


RESID

ENT R

ISK

PAGE | 19

2.1.3.1 Rates

Figure 22 shows senior resident casualty rates for Suffolk, compared to the national rate and comparator

authorities. Figure 23 shows the rate for Suffolk and its district authorities. The rate is the annual average number

of senior resident casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population aged 65 and over.

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

Sen

ior

Res

iden

t C

asu

alty

Rat

e

Figure 22 - Annual average senior resident casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 senior population – Suffolk and comparator authorities

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

Sen

ior

Res

iden

t C

asu

alty

Rat

e

Figure 23 - Annual average senior resident casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 senior population – Suffolk and its districts


RESID

ENT R

ISK

PAGE | 20

2.1.3.2 Comparisons

National

Suffolk’s senior resident casualty rate of 139.1 per 100,000 population aged 65 and over is 10% lower than the

national rate. Suffolk has a higher senior casualty rate than six of its comparator authorities. It has a lower rate than

Kent. Dorset and Warwickshire have similar rates with Suffolk with 138.4 and 134.8 respectively per 100,000

population aged 65 and over.

Internal

Within Suffolk, four of the district authorities have a higher rate than Suffolk (Babergh, Forest Heath, Ipswich and

Mid Suffolk). St Edmundsbury has the lowest rate (109.6) with Suffolk Coastal and Waveney also having a lower rate

than Suffolk.


Figure 24 shows Suffolk’s senior resident casualties by MSOA. The thematic map is colour coded by the rate of senior

resident casualties per year per 100,000 population of 65 year olds and over. The data are from the period 2011 to

2015. Senior resident casualty rates are higher in parts of Ipswich, east of Sudbury, in and around Debenham and in

Newmarket.

Figure 24 - Senior resident casualties by MSOA (2011-2015). Annual average casualties per 100,000 senior population


RESID

ENT R

ISK

PAGE | 21

2.1.3.3 Trends

Figure 25 shows senior resident casualty numbers since 2006, by severity. Casualty numbers increased slightly up

to 2008 then slightly reduced to 2013, increased again in 2014 and decreased in 2015. In 2015 there were 217

senior resident casualties, a 3% decrease from 2006 and a 15% decrease from 2014. In the past five year period

(2011-2015) 16% of senior casualties were either killed or seriously injured.

Figure 25 - Suffolk senior resident casualties, by year and severity (2006-2015)

Senior Resident Casualties occurring in other areas

Eighty-three percent of Suffolk’s senior resident casualties were injured on Suffolk’s roads with the rest injured

mainly in nearby authorities including Norfolk (7%), Essex (3%) and Cambridgeshire (2%).

Senior Resident Casualties by Road User Type

Figure 26 shows the total numbers of Suffolk senior resident casualties over the past five years (2011-2015) by road

user type. Figure 27 shows Suffolk senior casualties by type as a percentage of all senior casualties. Also shown are

all Suffolk adult resident casualties’ and GB senior casualties’ percentages for comparison. More than fifty-eight

percent of Suffolk’s senior resident casualties are injured as car drivers. This is slightly higher than the percentage

for all Suffolk’s adult resident casualties (53.2%) and is significantly higher than the percentage of senior car drivers

nationally (44.2%). Almost thirteen percent of Suffolk’s senior casualties are injured as pedestrians. This is higher

than for all adult casualties (6.4%) but is much lower than the national senior casualty percentage of 18.6%.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Sen

ior

Res

iden

t C

asu

alti

es

KSI Slight Trend


RESID

ENT R

ISK

PAGE | 22

Figure 26 - Suffolk senior resident casualties by road user type (2011-2015)

Figure 27 - Percentage of Suffolk senior resident casualties by type compared to all adult casualties and GB senior casualties (2011-2015)


Segmentation

Analysis of the Mosaic communities in which Suffolk’s senior resident casualties live provides an insight into those

injured in collisions. For an explanation of Mosaic Public Sector and how to understand the following chart, please

refer to 4.1.1.1 on page 64.

Pedestrian: 142

Cyclist: 47

Car Driver: 640

Car Passenger: 198

Other Driver: 60

Other Passenger: 12

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Pedestrian Cyclist Car Driver Car Passenger Other Driver Other Passenger

Per

cen

tage

of

Tota

l

Suffolk Senior Casualties Suffolk All Adult Casualties GB Senior Casualties


RESID

ENT R

ISK

PAGE | 23

Figure 28 - Suffolk senior resident casualties by Mosaic Type (2011-2015)

Figure 28 shows Suffolk’s senior resident casualties by the Mosaic Group of the postcode they live in. The red bars

show the index value based on the population of those Groups living in Suffolk.

The highest numbers of resident casualties come from Country Living (Group A). This Type is also over-represented

based on population.

There are high numbers of casualties from Rural Reality (Group G) and this Group is also over-represented based on

the population of these communities living in Suffolk.

Senior Security (Group F) have high numbers of casualties and are significantly over-represented when population is

taken in to account. There are fewer casualties from Vintage Value (Group N) but they are also significantly over-

represented. Aspiring Homemakers (Group H) is underrepresented based on the population of these communities

living in Suffolk.

Deprivation

Figure 29 shows senior resident casualties by the IMD of the LSOA in which they reside. The chart shows that the

largest numbers of senior resident casualties live in some of the least deprived communities of Suffolk, (the less

deprived 50% and 40% deciles). Residents from these communities are over-represented as casualties, given the

number of people in that age group living in these communities (as shown by indices of 107 and 113 respectively).

Residents of communities in the most deprived communities are over-represented but there are fewer overall

resident casualties from these areas.

151

112

194

165

42

117

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

A G F N H B

Sen

ior

Res

iden

t C

asu

alti

es

Mosaic Group


RESID

ENT R

ISK

PAGE | 24

89

117

105

89 87

107113

105

8794

0

50

100

150

200

250

MostDeprived

10%

MoreDeprived

20%

MoreDeprived

30%

MoreDeprived

40%

MoreDeprived

50%

LessDeprived

50%

LessDeprived

40%

LessDeprived

30%

LessDeprived

20%

LeastDeprived

10%

Ind

ex b

y Se

nio

r P

op

ula

tio

n

Res

iden

t C

asu

alti

es

IMD Decile

Figure 29 - Senior resident casualties by Index of Multiple Deprivation (2011-2015)


RESID

ENT R

ISK

PAGE | 25

2.2 Resident Motor Vehicle Users

2.2.1 All Resident Drivers and Riders involved in Collisions

This section refers to all drivers and riders involved in collisions who are residents of Suffolk, regardless of where the

collision took place. For an explanation of the methodologies employed throughout this section, please refer to

4.1.1.1 on page 64. Only adult drivers (aged 16 and over) of motor vehicles are included in this section.

2.2.1.1 Rates

Figure 30 shows resident driver rates for Suffolk, compared to the national rate and to comparator authorities. Figure

31 shows the rate for Suffolk and the district authorities within Suffolk. The rate is the annual average number of

resident drivers involved in injury collisions per 100,000 adult population (aged 16 and over).

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

Res

iden

t D

rive

r R

ate

Figure 30 - Annual average resident drivers (2011-2015) per 100,000 adult population – Suffolk and comparator authorities


RESID

ENT R

ISK

PAGE | 26

2.2.1.2 Comparisons

National

Suffolk’s resident driver rate of 438.7 per 100,000 adult population is 9% lower than the national rate. Of the

comparator authorities only Kent has a higher resident driver rate. Gloucestershire and Northamptonshire have the

lowest rates.

Internal

Within Suffolk, the rates for the district authorities vary little from the overall Suffolk rate. Ipswich has the highest

rate (473.2) and St Edmundsbury has the lowest rate (387.7).


Figure 32 shows Suffolk’s resident collision involved drivers’ home location by LSOA. The thematic map is colour

coded by the driver rate, which is the annual average number of resident drivers per 100,000 adult population (aged

16 and over). Data are from the period 2011-2015. Higher rates of resident drivers involved in collisions are scattered

throughout Suffolk with concentrations in parts of Ipswich, the area in between Southwold and Lowestoft around

Wrentham and Kessingland, Orford, Rendlesham, Crowfield, Barking, Nacton, Great Waldingfienld, Barnigham and

Westhorpe.

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

Res

iden

t D

rive

r R

ate

Figure 31 - Annual average resident drivers (2011-2015) per 100,000 adult population – Suffolk and its districts

ts


RESID

ENT R

ISK

PAGE | 27

2.2.1.3 Trends

Figure 33 shows Suffolk’s annual resident motor vehicle driver numbers by severity. There has been a gradual

reduction in numbers over the past decade. In 2015 there were 2,343 drivers from Suffolk involved in an injury

collision. This is a 30% reduction from 2006 and a 14% reduction from 2014. In the most recent five year period

(2011-2015) 15% of Suffolk’s resident drivers were involved in a collision resulting in a killed or seriously injured

casualty.

Figure 32 - Annual average resident drivers (2011-2015) per 100,000 adult population, by LSOA


RESID

ENT R

ISK

PAGE | 28

Figure 33 - Suffolk resident drivers, by year and severity (2006-2015)

Resident driver crash involvement in other areas

Seventy-nine percent of Suffolk’s resident drivers are involved in collisions on Suffolk’s roads. Of the other

authorities, 5% of resident drivers are involved in collisions in Norfolk; 5% in Essex; and 4% in Cambridgeshire.


Segmentation

Analysis of the Mosaic communities in which Suffolk’s resident drivers and riders live provides an insight into those

involved in collisions. For an explanation of Mosaic Public Sector and how to understand the following chart, please


Figure 34 shows resident drivers by Mosaic Type. The red bars show the index value when resident driver numbers

are indexed by the mileage driven by those Types.

As with the resident casualty Mosaic analysis, the highest driver numbers come from communities of Local Focus

(Type G28). This Type is also over-represented when taking mileage (and population) in to account.

There are higher driver numbers from Satellite Settlers (Type G29) and Outlying Seniors (Type G27) but these

numbers are at an expected level, given the mileage they drive.

Village Retirement (Type A04) also have higher driver collision involvement numbers but these communities are

under-represented when levels of mileage they typically drive is taken in to account.

Rural Vogue (Type A01) and Midlife Stopgap (Type L52) have lower driver collision involvement numbers but are

over-represented when taking mileage in to account.

Renting a Room (Type L50) have lower driver collision involvement numbers but these communities are highly over-

represented when levels of mileage they typically drive is taken in to account.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Res

iden

t D

rive

rs

KSI Slight Trend


RESID

ENT R

ISK

PAGE | 29

Figure 34 - Suffolk resident drivers by Mosaic Type (2011-2015), indexed by annual average mileage

More information on the characteristics of the communities from some of these Mosaic Types and a thematic map

showing the areas where they live can be found in 4.2.2 on page 70.

Deprivation

Figure 35 shows Suffolk’s resident drivers by Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). The highest number of drivers are

from some of the least deprived communities (50% and 40% less deprived decile) and from one of the most deprived

communities (50% more deprived decile). The least deprived communities with high numbers feature as expected

when the population of Suffolk is taken into account, as shown by the red bar representing an index value of 99 for

both. As with casualties, drivers from the most deprived deciles are the most over-represented in collisions,

however, most of these resident drivers represent small numbers.

128

98

106

80

117 121

9096

102

9588

84 8779

140

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

G28 G29 G27 A04 A01 L52 F24 H34 H30 A02 A03 D15 E21 D16 L50

Res

iden

t D

rive

rs

Mosaic Type


RESID

ENT R

ISK

PAGE | 30

Figure 35 - Resident drivers by Index of Multiple Deprivation (2011-2015)

2.2.2 Resident Motorcyclists involved in Collisions

This section refers to motorcyclists involved in collisions and who are residents of Suffolk. For an explanation of the

methodologies employed throughout this section, please refer to 4.1.1.1 on page 64.

2.2.2.1 Rates

Figure 36 shows the resident motorcycle rider collision involvement rate for Great Britain, Suffolk and comparator

authorities. Figure 37 shows the rate for Suffolk and its district authorities. The rate is the annual average number

of motorcycle riders (2011-2015) per 100,000 adult population (aged 16 and over).

112108

103 104 107

99 9994

89 92

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

MostDeprived

10%

MoreDeprived

20%

MoreDeprived

30%

MoreDeprived

40%

MoreDeprived

50%

LessDeprived

50%

LessDeprived

40%

LessDeprived

30%

LessDeprived

20%

LeastDeprived

10%

Res

iden

t D

rive

rs

IMD Decile


RESID

ENT R

ISK

PAGE | 31

Figure 36 - Annual average resident motorcycle riders (2011-2015) per 100,000 adult population – Suffolk and comparator authorities

Figure 37 - Annual average resident motorcycle riders (2011-2015) per 100,000 adult population – Suffolk and its districts

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

Res

iden

t M

oto

rcyc

le R

ider

s R

ate

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Res

iden

t M

oto

rcyc

le R

ider

s R

ate


RESID

ENT R

ISK

PAGE | 32

2.2.2.2 Comparisons

National

Suffolk’s motorcycle rider rate of 41.1 per 100,000 adult population is 1% higher than the national rate. Suffolk has

a higher rate than five of its comparator authorities. Kent and Essex have higher rates than Suffolk, with 43.4 and

41.4 respectively per 100,000 adult population.

Internal

Ipswich and Waveney have the highest rates within Suffolk with 49.0 and 49.5 respectively. St Edmundsbury, Forest

Heath and Babergh have the lowest rates.


Figure 38 shows Suffolk’s collision involved motorcycle riders by home MSOA. The rate is the annual average number

of riders per 100,000 adult population (aged 16 and over). The rates of resident motorcycle riders involved in

collisions are higher in parts of Lowestoft, south Ipswich and the area in and around Southwold and Wrentham.

2.2.2.3 Trends

Shown in Figure 39 are Suffolk’s annual resident motorcycle rider numbers by severity. There was little change up

to 2009, but since then there has been a steady reduction in the number of motorcycle riders involved in collisions.

Figure 38 - Annual average resident motorcycle riders per 100,000 adult population, by MSOA (2011-2015)


RESID

ENT R

ISK

PAGE | 33

There were 215 motorcyclists involved in injury collisions in 2015, which is 26% lower than in 2006 and 15% lower

than in 2014.

Over the most recent five year period (2011-2015) 30% of Suffolk’s resident motorcycle riders were involved in

injury collisions where one or more of the casualties was killed or seriously injured. This represents a high KSI ratio

compared to other road user groups.

Figure 39 - Suffolk resident motorcycle riders, by year and severity (2006-2015)

Resident Motorcyclist crash involvement in other areas

Eighty-four percent of Suffolk’s resident motorcycle riders were involved in collisions on Suffolk’s roads. Five percent

were involved in collisions in Norfolk; 5% in Essex and 3% in Cambridgeshire.

2.2.2.4 Related Casualties

Passenger and pedestrian casualties

The related casualties of Suffolk’s resident motorcycle riders have been analysed in Figure 40. Related casualties can

be the motorcycle rider themselves; an injured pillion passenger; or a pedestrian struck by the motorcycle rider. This

means that injured drivers and passengers of other vehicles are not included in the analysis. For Suffolk’s resident

motorcycle riders, 95% of the casualties were the riders themselves. A further 3% were their pillion passengers and

2% were pedestrians who were injured after the motorcyclist hit them. It should be noted that the related casualties

of Suffolk’s resident motorcycle riders could live anywhere in the country and have been injured anywhere.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Res

iden

t M

oto

rcyc

le R

ider

s

KSI Slight Trend


RESID

ENT R

ISK

PAGE | 34

Figure 40 - Suffolk's resident motorcycle riders - related casualties (2011-2015)

2.2.3 Young adult resident drivers involved in collisions

This section refers to young drivers involved in collisions and who are residents of Suffolk. For an explanation of the

methodologies employed throughout this section, please refer to 4.1.1.1 on page 64.

2.2.3.1 Rates

Figure 41 shows the rate of young adult resident drivers involved in injury collisions per year per 10,000 16-24 year

old population for Suffolk as well as Great Britain and Suffolk’s comparator authorities. Figure 42 shows the rate for

Suffolk and its district authorities.

Figure 41 - Annual average young adult resident drivers (2011-2015) per 100,000 young adult population – Suffolk and comparators

1183

20 39

Rider

Pedestrian

Pillion Passenger

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0

You

ng

Ad

ult

Res

iden

t D

rive

rs R

ate


RESID

ENT R

ISK

PAGE | 35

Figure 42 - Annual average young adult resident drivers (2011-2015) per 100,000 young adult population – Suffolk and its districts

2.2.3.2 Comparisons

National

Suffolk’s young adult resident driver rate of 597.9 per 100,000 young adult population is 30% higher than the

national rate. Suffolk has a lower rate than Dorset but is higher than the other comparator authorities.

Internal

Suffolk Coastal, Babergh and Mid Suffolk all have higher young adult resident driver rates than Suffolk. Ipswich has

the lowest rate of 446.1 young adult resident drivers per 100,000 16-24 year old population.


Figure 43 shows Suffolk’s young resident collision involved drivers by home MSOA. The thematic map is colour coded

by the rate of young drivers per year per 16-24 year old population. Higher young driver rates are found in mostly

rural areas throughout Suffolk, including along the coast in around the areas of Halesworth, Southwold,

Saxmundham, Leiston and Aldeburgh. There are also higher rates to the south west of the county near to Haverhill,

Stansfield and Lawshall, as well as around Market Weston and Westhorpe.

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0

800.0

900.0

You

ng

Ad

ult

Res

iden

t D

rive

rs R

ate


RESID

ENT R

ISK

PAGE | 36

2.2.3.3 Trends

Figure 44 shows Suffolk’s annual young adult resident driver numbers, by severity, over the period 2006-2015. There

has been a significant reduction in young adult driver collision involvement over the past decade, with a 48%

reduction since 2006. In 2015, there was a total of 357 young adults involved in collisions including 6 where a casualty

was killed and 41 where there was a seriously injured casualty. Between 2011 and 2015, 12% of the young adult

resident drivers were involved in collisions which resulted in death or serious injury.

Figure 43 - Annual average young resident motor vehicle drivers per 10,000 population (of 16-24 year olds), by MSOA (2011-2015)


RESID

ENT R

ISK

PAGE | 37

Figure 44 - Suffolk young adult resident drivers, by year and severity (2006-2015)

Young Adult Resident Driver crash involvement in other areas

Eighty-three percent of Suffolk’s young resident drivers are involved in collisions on Suffolk’s roads. Other authorities

where Suffolk’s young drivers are involved in collisions include Norfolk (5%), Cambridgeshire (4%) and Essex (4%).


Segmentation

Analysis of the Mosaic communities in which Suffolk’s young adult resident drivers live provides an insight into those

involved in collisions. For an explanation of Mosaic Public Sector and how to understand the following chart, please


Figure 45 shows Suffolk’s young adult resident drivers by Mosaic Group. Mosaic Group is used instead of Mosaic

Type as numbers are too low to be significant by Type. The highest number of young drivers are from Rural Reality

(Group G). This Group is over-represented against the mileage they drive and against the number of residents living

in these communities in Suffolk (the index is against the total population and not just 16 to 24 year olds).

Country Living (Group A) have a high number of young drivers involved in injury collisions but feature as expected,

given the mileage this Group drives. However, they are over-represented by population (with an index of 116).

Aspiring Homemakers (Group H) represent lower numbers of collision-involved drivers and they are under-

represented based on the mileage they drive and the population figures for these communities.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

You

ng

Ad

ult

Res

iden

t D

rive

rs

KSI Slight Trend


RESID

ENT R

ISK

PAGE | 38

Figure 45 - Suffolk young adult resident drivers by Mosaic Group (2011-2015), indexed by annual average mileage

Deprivation

Figure 46 - Suffolk young adult resident drivers by Index of Multiple Deprivation (2011-2015)

Figure 46 shows young drivers by IMD. The red bars represent the index value showing whether young drivers are

over or under represented based on the population of 16-24 year olds from each community. Higher young driver

numbers come from one most deprived area (50% more deprived) and from three of the least deprived areas (less

deprived 30-50% deciles) and these are all over-represented as drivers in collisions, compared to the young adult

123

101

87

102 106

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

G A H L M

You

ng

Ad

ult

Res

iden

tD

rive

rs

Mosaic Group

66 7080

89

119109

114 111

97 99

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

MostDeprived

10%

MoreDeprived

20%

MoreDeprived

30%

MoreDeprived

40%

MoreDeprived

50%

LessDeprived

50%

LessDeprived

40%

LessDeprived

30%

LessDeprived

20%

LeastDeprived

10%

You

ng

Ad

ult

Res

iden

t D

rive

rs

IMD Decile

Young Resident Drivers Index


RESID

ENT R

ISK

PAGE | 39

population of Suffolk. The lowest numbers of young drivers live in the most deprived communities and these are

also under-represented.

2.2.3.5 Related Casualties

Passenger and pedestrian casualties

The related casualties of Suffolk’s young adult resident drivers have been analysed. Related casualties can be the

young driver themselves; an injured passenger; or a pedestrian struck by the young driver’s vehicle. It means that

injured drivers and passengers of other vehicles are not included in the analysis. For Suffolk’s young resident drivers,

67% of the casualties were the drivers themselves. A further 29% were their passengers and 4% were pedestrians

who were injured after the young driver’s vehicle hit them. It should be noted that the related casualties of Suffolk’s

young resident drivers could live anywhere in the country and have been injured anywhere.

Figure 47 - Injured Passengers in Suffolk's young resident drivers’ vehicles compared to all adult drivers (2011-2015)

Figure 47 shows the number of young drivers by the presence and quantity of injured passengers in their vehicle.

The red bars are indices comparing young drivers to the figures for injured passengers for all adult drivers. It shows

that most young drivers (80%) do not have injured passengers in their vehicle, however, the red bars indicate that

they are more likely to have one or more injured passengers than all adult drivers. The indices for Suffolk’s resident

young drivers are similar to the national indices, although there is a slightly bigger index for Suffolk’s resident young

drivers who had one injured passenger than seen nationally (index of 138 compared to a national index of 131) and

a slightly smaller index for Suffolk’s young drivers who had two or more injured passengers than seen nationally

(index of 156 compared to a national index of 163).

93

138

156

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

No Passengers 1 Passenger 2+ Passengers

You

ng

Ad

ult

Res

iden

t D

rive

rs

Injured Passengers

Young Resident Drivers Index



3 Road Network Risk

3.1 Collisions on all roads

This section refers to all collisions which occurred on Suffolk’s roads. For information on casualties who live in Suffolk,

please refer to 2.1 on page 7. For analysis involving Suffolk resident motor vehicle users, please refer to 2.2 on page

25. For an explanation of the methodologies employed throughout this section, please refer to Collisions on page

65.

3.1.1 Rates

3.1.1.1 Collisions per km of road

Figure 48 below shows the rate of average annual collisions between 2011 and 2015 per 10 km of road for Suffolk,

Great Britain and comparator authorities. Official road length data from the Department for Transport are not made

available at the district level, therefore comparisons between Suffolk’s district authorities have not been made here.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Co

llisi

on

Rat

e

Figure 48 - Annual average collisions (2011-2015) per 10km of road


RO

AD

NETW

OR

K R

ISK

PAGE | 42

3.1.2 Comparisons

National

Suffolk’s collisions per km rate of 2.5 is 33% lower than the national rate of 3.7. It has a lower rate than all the

comparator authorities except Gloucestershire and Dorset, although Northamptonshire and Worcestershire have

similar rates with Suffolk.

Collisions by Small Area

The map (Figure 49) shows collisions on all roads in Suffolk, by LSOA. The thematic map is colour coded by the rate

of annual average collisions per 10km of road. Higher collision rates can be found in the more urban areas of Ipswich,

Bury St Edmunds, Newmarket, Stowmarket, Lowestoft and Beccles. As explained in 3.1.1.1, it is not possible to

compare these rates directly with the county-wide rate.

Figure 49 - Annual average collisions (2011-2015) per 10km of road, by LSOA

3.1.3 Trends

Figure 50 shows annual collisions on all of Suffolk’s roads, including strategic roads, from 2006 to 2015. Collisions on

Suffolk’s roads have steadily reduced over the past decade with a 29% reduction from 2006. Collisions involving a

KSI have reduced by 40% from 2006 and by 18% from 2014. Over the past five years (2011-2015), 15% of collisions

on Suffolk’s roads involve a KSI casualty, same as 15% nationally.


RO

AD

NETW

OR

K R

ISK

PAGE | 43

Figure 50 - Suffolk collisions, by year and severity (2006-2015)

3.1.3.1 Collisions by hour of day

Collisions by hour of day during the working week

Figure 51 shows collisions on a week day by the hour of the day in which they occurred. There are peaks in the main

commuter times, between 8am and 9am and between 3pm and 6pm.

Figure 51 - Collisions on Suffolk's roads by hour of day - weekdays (2011-2015)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

All

Co

llisi

on

s

KSI Slight Trend

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Co

llisi

on

s

KSI Slight


RO

AD

NETW

OR

K R

ISK

PAGE | 44

Collisions by hour of day at weekends

Figure 52 shows collisions on a weekend by the hour of the day in which they occurred. Collisions are more spread

throughout the day than they are on weekdays. Most collisions occur between 10am and 7pm.

Figure 52 - Collisions on Suffolk's roads by hour of day - weekends (2011-2015)

3.1.3.2 Collisions involving drivers who reside in other areas

Residency analysis on drivers and riders involved in collisions in Suffolk makes it possible to distinguish those who

do not reside in the county. Eighty-one percent of drivers with known postcodes involved in collisions in Suffolk, are

from Suffolk. The rest are from nearby highway authorities including Norfolk (7%), Essex (5%) and Cambridgeshire

(2%).

3.1.4 Casualty trends on all roads

3.1.4.1 All casualties

Figure 53 shows annual casualty numbers on Suffolk’s roads. There has been a downward trend in the number of

people injured on Suffolk’s roads over the past decade. In 2015 there were 1,948 casualties injured on Suffolk’s

roads; a reduction of 33% from 2006 and a reduction of 17% from 2014. KSI casualty numbers have reduced from

242 in 2014 to 207 in 2015.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Co

llisi

on

s

KSI Slight


RO

AD

NETW

OR

K R

ISK

PAGE | 45

Figure 53 - Casualties on Suffolk's roads, by year and severity (2006-2015)

3.1.4.2 Pedal cyclist casualties

Figure 54 shows annual pedal cycle user casualty numbers on Suffolk’s roads. Casualty numbers reduced slightly

until to 2010 but have increased in recent years. There were 189 pedal cycle user casualties injured on Suffolk’s

roads in 2015, a decrease of 8% from 2006 and 19% from 2014. Between 2011 and 2015, 16% of pedal cycle user

casualties on Suffolk’s roads were killed or seriously injured, which is lower than the national percentage of 17%.

Figure 54 - Pedal cycle user casualties on Suffolk's roads, by year and severity (2006-2015)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Cas

ual

ties

KSI Slight Trend

0

50

100

150

200

250

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Ped

al C

ycle

Use

r C

asu

alti

es

KSI Slight Trend


RO

AD

NETW

OR

K R

ISK

PAGE | 46

3.1.4.3 Senior casualties

Figure 55 shows annual senior (aged 65 and over) casualty numbers on Suffolk’s roads. The number of senior

casualties on Suffolk’s roads has slightly increased over the past decade. There were 228 senior casualties on

Suffolk’s roads in 2015, an increase of 4% from 2006 but a decrease of 17% from 2014. In the most recent five year

period (2011-2015) 17% of senior casualties were killed or seriously injured, compared to 20% nationally.

Figure 55 - Senior casualties on Suffolk's roads, by year (2006-2015)

3.1.5 Contributory Factors

Each section below examines trends in reported collisions on Suffolk’s roads involving groups of related contributory

factors (CFs). For each group, the total number of collisions in which any CF in the group was recorded has been

determined. The darker shaded trend line shows the three year moving average for collisions where the CF being

analysed was recorded. The lighter shaded dashed trend line shows a three year average for all collisions where an

officer attended and at least one CF was recorded, for comparison.

For more information about CFs and the techniques used to analyse them see Contributory factors on page 67. For

a complete list of all CFs and CF groupings used by RSA, see Contributory Factor Groupings on page 78.

3.1.5.1 Speed Choice

This section examines collisions, by severity, where at least one of the contributory factors 306 Exceeding speed limit

and/or 307 Travelling too fast for conditions was attributed to one or more vehicles. This may include some instances

where these factors were applied more than once in the same collision.

Speed related CFs by urban and rural built-up and non-built-up roads are detailed in sections 3.2.1.4 and 3.2.2.4.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Sen

ior

Cas

ual

ties

KSI Slight Trend


RO

AD

NETW

OR

K R

ISK

PAGE | 47

Trends

Figure 56 shows annual collisions on Suffolk’s roads where at least one of the speed choice CFs were recorded.

There has been a general downward trend since 2006. In 2015 there were 150 collisions where a speed choice CF

was recorded, a decrease of 19% from 185 in 2014 and 44% lower than in 2006. Twenty-one percent of the collisions

where a speed choice CF was recorded resulted in death or serious injury compared to 16% for all collisions with a

recorded CF.

Figure 56 - Collisions on Suffolk's roads where CF306 and/or CF307 were recorded (2006-2015)

Comparisons

Figure 57 shows collisions on Suffolk’s roads where at least one of the speed choice CFs was recorded, as a

percentage of all officer attended collisions where at any CF was recorded. Also shown are the national and

comparator authorities’ percentages. Figure 58 shows percentages for Suffolk and its district authorities.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Spee

d C

ho

ice

Collisions 3 Year Trend All 3 year trend


RO

AD

NETW

OR

K R

ISK

PAGE | 48

Figure 57 - Collisions where CF306 and/or CF307 were recorded (2011-2015) – Suffolk and comparator authorities

Figure 58 - Collisions where CF306 and/or CF307 were recorded (2011-2015) – Suffolk and its districts

National

Suffolk has a higher percentage of speed related collisions than the national percentage. Suffolk has a higher

percentage of speed choice CF recorded collisions than the comparator authorities of Dorset, Essex, Gloucestershire

and Kent. It has the same percentage as Worcestershire but is lower than Northamptonshire and Warwickshire.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Spee

d C

ho

ice

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

Spee

d C

ho

ice


RO

AD

NETW

OR

K R

ISK

PAGE | 49

Internal

Within Suffolk, Mid Suffolk has the highest percentage of speed related collisions at 17.9% followed by Babergh at

16.7%. The district with the lowest percentage of speed related collisions is Ipswich, with 8.6%.

3.1.5.2 Control Errors

This section examines collisions where at least one of the CFs 408 Sudden braking, 409 Swerved and/or 410 Loss of

control was attributed to one or more drivers. This may include some instances where these factors were applied

more than once in the same collision.

Trends

Figure 59 shows annual collisions on Suffolk’s roads where at least one of the control error CFs were recorded. The

darker shaded trend line shows the three year moving average for control error collisions. The lighter shaded dashed

trend line shows a three year average for all collisions where an officer attended and at least one CF was recorded,

for comparison. The chart shows a general downward trend in control error collisions since 2009. There were 342

control error related collisions in 2015, down from 373 in 2014. This is in line with the overall downward trend and

is 22% lower than in 2006. In the past five year period (2011-2015) 18% of collisions where a control error CF has

been recorded have resulted in a killed or seriously injured casualty.

Figure 59 - Collisions on Suffolk's roads where CF408, CF409 and/or CF410 were recorded (2006-2015)

Comparisons

Figure 60 shows collisions on Suffolk’s roads where at least one of the control errors CFs was recorded as a

percentage of all officer attended collisions where at least one CF was recorded. The national and comparator

authorities’ percentages are also included for comparison. Figure 61 shows the percentages for Suffolk and its district

authorities.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Co

ntr

ol e

rro

r C

olli

sio

ns



RO

AD

NETW

OR

K R

ISK

PAGE | 50

Figure 60 - Collisions where CF408, CF409 and/or CF410 were attributed (2011-2015) – Suffolk and comparator authorities

Figure 61 - Collisions where CF408, CF409 and/or CF410 were attributed (2011-2015) – Suffolk and its districts

National

Suffolk’s percentage of control error collisions is slightly higher than the national percentage. Suffolk has a similar

control error related percentage to most of its comparator authorities although Dorset has a significant lower

percentage and Warwickshire and Worcestershire have far higher percentages.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Co

ntr

ol E

rro

rs

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Co

ntr

ol E

rro

rs


RO

AD

NETW

OR

K R

ISK

PAGE | 51

Internal

Within Suffolk, Babergh and Suffolk Coastal have the highest percentages with 32.1% and 29.9% respectively.

Ipswich has the lowest percentage with 13.9% of all attended collisions being attributed one or more of the control

error CFs.

3.1.5.3 Unsafe Behaviour

This section examines collisions, by severity, where at least one of the CFs 601 Aggressive driving and/or 602

Careless, reckless or in a hurry was attributed. This may include some instances where more than one of these factors

were applied in the same collision.

Trends

Figure 62 shows annual collisions on Suffolk’s roads where at least one of the unsafe driving CFs were recorded.

Collisions where unsafe driving were recorded have changed little over the last decade. In 2015, there were 210

collisions where at least one of the unsafe driving CFs was recorded. This is a decrease from the number of unsafe

driving related collisions in 2014 and in 2006 of 28% and 25% respectively.

Figure 62 - Collisions on Suffolk's roads where CF601 and/or CF602 were recorded (2006-2015)

Comparisons

Figure 63 shows collisions on Suffolk’s roads where at least one of the unsafe driving CFs were recorded as a

percentage of all officer attended collisions where at least one CF was recorded. The national and comparator

authority percentages are also shown. Figure 64 shows the percentage of collisions where an unsafe driving CF was

recorded for Suffolk and its district authorities.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Un

safe

Dri

vin

g



RO

AD

NETW

OR

K R

ISK

PAGE | 52

Figure 63 - Collisions where CF601 and/or CF602 were recorded (2011-2015) – Suffolk and comparator authorities

Figure 64 - Collisions where CF601 and/or CF602 were recorded (2011-2015) – Suffolk and its district authorities

National

Suffolk’s percentage of unsafe driving related collisions is slightly lower than the national percentage of these

collisions (18% compares to 18.7%). Essex has the highest percentage of the comparator authorities with 28%.

Dorset has the lowest with 8.3%.

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

22%

24%

26%

28%

Un

safe

Dri

vin

g

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

22%

24%

Un

safe

Dri

vin

g


RO

AD

NETW

OR

K R

ISK

PAGE | 53

Internal

There is little variation in the percentages of unsafe driving related collisions across Suffolk, with the largest

percentage in Ipswich with 20.1% and the lowest percentage of 16.4% in Mid Suffolk.


RO

AD

NETW

OR

K R

ISK

PAGE | 54

3.2 Collisions on roads by environment

For more information on the methodology used to analyse networks by road environment, see Collisions on page

65.

3.2.1 Urban Roads

This section includes all roads in urban areas of Suffolk, including strategic roads.

3.2.1.1 Rates

Figure 65 shows the rate of average annual collisions on urban roads between 2011 and 2015 per 10 km of urban

road for Suffolk, Great Britain and comparator authorities. Official road length data from the Department for

Transport are not made available at the district level, therefore comparisons between Suffolk’s district authorities

have not been made here.

Figure 65 - Annual average collisions on urban roads (2011-2015) per 10km of urban road

3.2.1.2 Comparisons

National

Suffolk’s collisions on urban roads per km rate of 5.3 is 19% lower than the national rate of 6.6. It has a lower rate

than Kent but has a higher rate than all other comparator authorities, although it is not much higher than Essex and

Warwickshire.

3.2.1.3 Trends

Figure 66 shows the annual numbers of collisions on Suffolk’s urban roads, by severity, between 2006 and 2015.

There has been a downward trend in collisions on urban roads over the past decade. There were 622 collisions on

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Co

llisi

on

s o

n U

rban

Ro

ads

Rat

e


RO

AD

NETW

OR

K R

ISK

PAGE | 55

urban roads in 2015, including 64 where there was a killed or seriously injured casualty. This is a reduction of 32%

from 2006 and 15% from 2014.

Figure 66 - Collisions on Suffolk's urban roads, by year and severity (2006-2015)

3.2.1.4 Urban Roads by Speed Limit

The Department for Transport classifies road as ‘built-up’ which are roads with speed limits of 40mph or less whilst

‘non built-up’ roads are those with speed limits over 40mph. This section examines collisions on urban roads, divided

into built-up and non-built-up sections.

Trends on built-up sections of urban roads

Figure 67 shows the number of collisions on urban roads where the speed limit is 40mph or less. There was a steady

reduction up to 2010 but in recent years there has been little change until 2015. There were 609 collisions on

Suffolk’s urban roads where the speed limit is 40mph or less, down from 887 in 2006 (31% reduction).

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Co

llisi

on

s o

n U

rban

Ro

ads

KSI Slight Trend


RO

AD

NETW

OR

K R

ISK

PAGE | 56

Figure 67 - Collisions on Suffolk's urban built-up roads, by year and severity (2006-2015)

Speed Choice on Urban Built-up Roads

This section examines collisions where at least one of the CFs 306 Exceeding speed limit and/or 307 Travelling too

fast for conditions was attributed to one or more vehicles in collisions on urban roads where the speed limit was

40mph or less. This may include some instances where these factors were applied more than once in the same

collision.

Trends

Figure 68 shows annual collisions on Suffolk’s urban built-up roads where at least one of the speed choice CFs were

recorded. Since 2006, there has been a downward trend. In 2015 there were 40 collisions on urban roads with speed

limits of 40mph or less in Suffolk where a speed CF was recorded. This is similar to the number in 2014 but is a 48%

reduction from 2006. On Suffolk’s urban built-up roads 7.9% of officer attended collisions had speed related CFs

recorded, which is slightly lower than the national percentage of 8.1%.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Co

llisi

on

s o

n U

rban

Bu

ilt-u

p R

oad

s

KSI Slight Trend


RO

AD

NETW

OR

K R

ISK

PAGE | 57

Figure 68 - Collisions on Suffolk's urban built-up roads where CF306 and/or CF307 were recorded (2006-2015)

Trends on non-built-up sections of urban roads

Figure 69 shows the number of collisions on urban roads in Suffolk where the speed limit is over 40mph. Collision

numbers are generally low and there have been fluctuations over the past decade. There has been an overall

reduction from 2006. In 2015 there were 13 collisions on Suffolk’s urban roads with a speed limit of over 40mph, a

reduction of 54% from 2006 and 32% from 2014. There were no fatalities and there were three collisions with one

or more seriously injured casualties.

Figure 69 - Collisions on Suffolk's urban non-built-up roads, by year and severity (2006-2015)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Spee

d R

elat

ed o

n U

rban

Bu

ilt-u

p r

oad

s


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Co

llisi

on

s o

n U

rban

No

n B

uilt

-up

Ro

ads

KSI Slight Trend


RO

AD

NETW

OR

K R

ISK

PAGE | 58

Speed Choice on Urban Non Built-up Roads


fast for conditions was attributed to one or more vehicles in collisions on urban non built-up roads. This may include

some instances where these factors were applied more than once in the same collision.

Trends

Figure 70 shows annual collisions on Suffolk’s urban non built-up roads where at least one of the speed related CFs

were recorded. The numbers of collisions on roads in urban areas where the speed limit is over 40mph and where

speed related CFs were recorded are very small and there is scatter in the data. In 2015 there were two collisions on

the urban non built-up roads of Suffolk where a speed related CF was recorded, down from three in 2014. Of the

officer attended collisions on urban non built-up roads, 11.9% had speed related CFs recorded.

Figure 70 - Collisions on Suffolk's Urban Non Built-up roads where CF306 and/or CF307 were recorded (2006-2015)

3.2.2 Rural Roads

This section includes all roads in urban areas of Suffolk, including strategic roads.

3.2.2.1 Rates

Figure 71 shows the rate of average annual collisions on rural roads between 2011 and 2015 per 10 km of rural road

for Suffolk, Great Britain and comparator authorities. Official road length data from the Department for Transport

are not made available at the district level, therefore comparisons between Suffolk’s district authorities have not

been made here.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Spee

d R

elat

ed o

n U

rban

No

n B

uilt

-up

Ro

ads



RO

AD

NETW

OR

K R

ISK

PAGE | 59

Figure 71 - Annual average collisions on rural roads (2011-2015) per 10km of rural road

3.2.2.2 Comparisons

National

On average over the last five years, there were 1.8 reported injury collisions each year for every 10 km of rural road

in Suffolk. This is 13% lower than the national annual rate, which is around 2 injury collisions per 10 km of rural road.

Suffolk has a lower rate than all comparator authorities apart from Gloucestershire. It has a similar rate to Dorset.

3.2.2.3 Trends

Figure 72 shows the annual numbers of collisions on Suffolk’s rural roads, by severity, between 2006 and 2015. There

has been a general downward trend in collisions on rural roads since 2006. In 2015 there were 864 collisions on

Suffolk’s rural roads; a reduction of 26% from 2006 and 16% from 2014. Over the most recent five year period (2011-

2015) 17% of collisions on rural roads resulted in death or serious injury, compared to 13% on Suffolk’s urban roads.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Co

llisi

on

s o

n R

ura

l Ro

ads

Rat

e


RO

AD

NETW

OR

K R

ISK

PAGE | 60

Figure 72 - Collisions on Suffolk's rural roads, by year and severity (2006-2015)

3.2.2.4 Rural Roads by Speed Limit

The Department for Transport classifies road as ‘built-up’ which are roads with speed limits of 40mph or less whilst

‘non built-up’ roads are those with speed limits over 40mph. This section examines collisions on rural roads, divided

into built-up and non-built-up sections.

Trends on built-up sections of rural roads

Figure 73 shows the number of collisions on rural roads where the speed limit is 40mph or less. There has been a

downward trend in the number of collisions on these roads over the past ten years with a 16% reduction from 2006.

There were 276 collisions on Suffolk’s rural roads where the speed limit is 40mph or less, including 5 collisions where

there was a fatality and 30 where there was at least one seriously injured casualty. In 2015 there has been a

reduction in total number of collisions on rural roads where the speed limit is 40mph or less, of 31% from 2006 and

28% from 2014.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Co

llisi

on

s o

n R

ura

l Ro

ads

KSI Slight Trend


RO

AD

NETW

OR

K R

ISK

PAGE | 61

Figure 73 - Collisions on Suffolk's rural built-up roads, by year and severity (2006-2015)

Speed Choice on Rural Built-up Roads


fast for conditions was attributed to one or more vehicles in collisions on rural built-up roads. This may include some

instances where these factors were applied more than once in the same collision.

Trends

Figure 74 shows annual collisions on Suffolk’s rural roads where the speed limit was 40mph or below and where at

least one of the speed related CFs were recorded. There has been fluctuation in the numbers of speed-related

collisions on these roads since 2006 with a slight reduction over this period. In 2015 there were 36 collisions on the

rural built-up roads of Suffolk where a speed related CF was recorded, a decrease of 12% from 2006 and 29% from

2014. Of all the officer attended collisions on these roads in Suffolk, 15.6% had speed related CFs recorded compared

to 12.8% across Great Britain.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Co

llisi

on

s o

n R

ura

l Bu

ilt-u

p R

oad

s

KSI Slight Trend


RO

AD

NETW

OR

K R

ISK

PAGE | 62

Figure 74 - Collisions on Suffolk's rural built-up roads where CF306 and/or CF307 were recorded (2006-2015)

Trends on non-built-up sections of rural roads

Figure 75 shows the number of collisions on rural roads in Suffolk where the speed limit is over 40mph. There has

been a downward trend since 2006. Between 2011 and 2015, 17% of the collisions on rural non built-up roads were

KSI collisions compared to 13% on Suffolk’s rural built-up roads. In 2015, there were 588 (17 fatal, 72 serious and

499 slight) collisions on rural roads with speed limits over 40mph. This has been a 24% reduction from 2006 and a

9% decrease from 2014.

Figure 75 - Collisions on Suffolk's rural non-built-up roads, by year and severity (2006-2015)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Spee

d R

elat

ed o

n R

ura

l Bu

ilt-u

p R

oad

s


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Co

llisi

on

s o

n R

ura

l No

n B

uilt

-up

Ro

ads

KSI Slight Trend


RO

AD

NETW

OR

K R

ISK

PAGE | 63

Speed Choice on Rural Non Built-up Roads


fast for conditions was attributed to one or more vehicles in collisions on rural non built-up roads. This may include

some instances where these factors were applied more than once in the same collision.

Trends

Figure 76 shows annual collisions on Suffolk’s rural non built-up roads where at least one of the speed related CFs

were recorded. Since 2006, there has been a general downward trend in speed related CFs being recorded on rural

roads with 50, 60 or 70mph speed limits. In 2015 there were 72 collisions on the rural non built-up roads of Suffolk

where a speed related CF was recorded, compared to 146 in 2006, a reduction of 51%.

Figure 76 - Collisions on Suffolk's rural non built-up roads where CF306 and/or CF307 were recorded (2006-2015)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Spee

d R

elat

ed o

n R

ura

l No

n B

uilt

-up

ro

ads




4 Appendices

4.1 Analytical Techniques

4.1.1.1 Resident road users

Casualty and driver postcodes in STATS 19 make it possible to identify where casualties from Suffolk reside. Thematic

maps are used to illustrate the number of casualties per head of population from each small area in Suffolk. Areas

on maps are progressively coloured, indicating annual average rates relative to the population of that area.

The geographical units used for this analysis are based on similar populations, which enables meaningful

comparative analysis within and between authorities. In England and Wales the areas used are super output areas

as defined by the Office of National Statistics. Where appropriate, lower level small areas are employed: for England

and Wales these are lower layer super output areas (LSOAs) of around 1,600 residents on average. In some cases

larger groupings are used, as is the case in MAST Online: for England and Wales these are middle layer super output

areas (MSOAs) with an average of nearly 8,000 residents each.

MAST Online has been used to determine the casualty figures for Suffolk’s residents injured in road collisions

anywhere in Britain. Using national population figures (by age where appropriate), casualty and driver/rider

involvement rates per head of population have been calculated. Charts have been devised which compare the local

rates with the equivalent figures for Great Britain and for selected comparators. Trend analysis examines resident

road user collision involvement over time and by severity, and additional trends are explored depending on road

user type.

Where appropriate, socio-demographic analysis is conducted to provide insight into the backgrounds of people from

Suffolk who are involved in collisions, either as casualties or motor vehicle users. Socio-demographic profiling

examines age breakdowns, and for some road user groups includes analysis using Mosaic Public Sector

segmentation, deprivation and/or rurality. More information on Mosaic is provided later in this section.

Mosaic Public Sector

Insight into the lifestyles of Suffolk resident road casualties and motor vehicle users can be provided through socio

demographic analysis. RSA Mosaic profiling uses Experian’s Mosaic Public Sector cross-channel classification

system2, which is assigned uniquely for each casualty and vehicle user based on individual postcodes in STATS 19

records. Typically nearly 85% of casualty and driver STATS19 records can be matched to Mosaic Types, so residency

analysis is based on about five out of six Suffolk residents involved in reported injury collisions.

Mosaic is intended to provide an accurate and comprehensive view of citizens and their needs by describing them

in terms of demographics, lifestyle, culture and behaviour. The system was devised under the direction of Professor

Richard Webber, a leading authority on consumer segmentation, using data from a wide range of public and private

sources. It is used to inform policy decisions, communications activity and resource strategies across the public

sector.

Mosaic presently classifies the community represented by each UK postcode into one of 15 Groups and 66 Types.

Each Group embraces between 3 and 6 Types. A complete list of Mosaic Types is provided in 4.2.1 on page 68 whilst

2 See Appendix B below, or go to http://www.experian.co.uk/marketing-services/products/mosaic-uk.html


AP

PEN

DIC

ES

profiles and distribution for the Mosaic Types identified in this Area Profile as providing insight on Suffolk’s residents

are detailed page 70.

This profile displays Mosaic analysis as Area/Column combination charts, to facilitate quick and easy insight into

residents and relative risk. In these charts, the shaded background area denotes the absolute number of Suffolk

resident casualties or drivers in each Mosaic Type, corresponding to the value axis to the left of the chart. The

columns in the foreground provide an index for each Mosaic Type or Group. These indices are 100 based, where a

value of 100 indicates the number of casualties or drivers shown by the corresponding point in the area is exactly in

proportion to the population of communities in Suffolk where that Type or Group predominates. Indices over 100

indicate over representation of that Type among casualties or motor vehicle users relative to the population: for

example, a value of 200 would signify that people resident in communities of that Type were involved in collisions

at twice the expected rate. Conversely, indices below 100 suggest under representation, so an index of 50 would

imply half the expected rate. Inevitably, index values become less significant as numbers of involved residents

decrease, because increased random fluctuations tend to decrease levels of confidence.

Deprivation

Deprivation levels are examined using UK Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) values. IMD is calculated by the Office

of National Statistics (ONS), the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government, and uses a range of economic,

social and housing data to generate a single deprivation score for each small area in the country. This profile uses

deciles, which are ten groups of equal frequency ranging from the 10% most deprived areas to the 10% least

deprived. It should be remembered that indices of multiple deprivation include income, employment, health,

education, access to services and living environment and are not merely about relative wealth.

In order to interpret deprivation more accurately at local level, this profile includes indexed IMD charts. Indices in

these charts show risk relative to the predominance of each IMD decile in the population of Suffolk, and can be

interpreted in the same way as indices on Mosaic charts as explained in the preceding section.

Rurality

National rurality classification systems have also been developed to define the rurality of small area geographies.

Each of these small areas was defined as either ‘Urban’ (defined as settlements with over 10,000 residents), ‘Rural’,

or ‘Town’ (a sub-class of ‘Rural’ for settlements under 10,000 residents). STATS19 postcodes for resident road users

from Suffolk have been used to determine the rurality of residents.

4.1.1.2 Collisions

MAST Online has been used to determine average annual road injury collision levels for Suffolk and relevant

comparator areas. Dividing this annual rate by road length in each area generates an annual crash rate per kilometre

of road, which allows direct comparisons to be made between authorities. Road length data have been taken from

central government figures, and where required have been calculated separately for different road classes and

environments. Charts have been devised which compare local rates with the equivalent figures for Great Britain and

comparator highway authorities. District authorities cannot be included, as road length data is only available at

highway authority level.

Trend analysis examines numbers of collisions on Suffolk’s roads over time and by severity, with additional trends

explored, sometimes classified by kinds of road network. In order to determine the distribution of collisions within

Suffolk, maps show the number of collisions in each small area, divided by the total road length (in kilometres) within

that small area.


AP

PEN

DIC

ES Contrasting kinds of road network

Road networks vary considerably across the country. It is often useful to analyse and compare collision rates

between authorities on certain kinds of road. Ideally such comparisons would take traffic flow to account, so

collision rates per vehicle distance travelled could be calculated. However, traffic flow data for different kinds of

road network is not available, so this profile can only calculate collision rates using road length. Road length data by

kind of road network has been taken from DfT figures where possible. As with all collisions, trend charts are provided

in addition to rate comparison charts.

Environment - urban and rural roads

The national urban-rural road classification is only defined in datasets prepared by the Department for Transport,

so it is not possible to define the rurality of individual roads on the basis of collision location data alone. Therefore,

where it is necessary to distinguish between collisions on urban and rural roads, this profile uses data from MAST

Online. Annual average collisions by rurality and total network urban and rural road lengths have been used to

generate annual collision rates per kilometre of road, which facilitates direct comparison between areas.

Environment – built-up and non-built-up

The Department for Transport classifies ‘built-up’ roads as those with speed limits of 40mph or less whilst ‘non built-

up’ roads are those with speed limits over 40mph. In this report, collisions are broken down by both urban and rural

and built-up and non-built-up in combination i.e. urban built-up, urban non-built-up, rural built-up and rural non-

built-up. Road length data is not available by speed limit so rates for comparisons cannot be created.

4.1.1.3 Comparators

In order to put the figures for Suffolk into context, comparisons with other areas have been made. This section

details the types of comparators used in this Area Profile.

Highway Authority Network Classification System (HANCS)

It is not always appropriate to compare an authority solely against its neighbours, especially when the authority has

unique characteristics in terms of socio-demographic composition and/or road network. Suffolk has been compared

to its most similar highway authorities using RSA’s Highway Authority Network Classification System (HANCS).

HANCS groups Highway Authorities together based on the density of their road network in order to facilitate

meaningful comparison of road risk. The selected authorities are listed in the following table. Comparisons with the

national picture have also been made throughout this Area Profile.

Highway Authority

Dorset County

Essex County

Gloucestershire County

Kent County

Northamptonshire County

Warwickshire County

Worcestershire County


AP

PEN

DIC

ES

4.1.1.4 Contributory factors

Police officers who attended the scene of an injury collision may choose to record certain contributory factors (CFs)

which in the officer’s view were likely to be related to the incident. Up to six CFs can be recorded for each collision.

CFs reflect the officer's opinion at the time of reporting, but may not be the result of extensive investigation.

Consequently, CFs should be regarded only as a general guide for identifying factors as possible concerns.

In all CF analysis, only collisions which were both attended by a police officer and for which at least one factor was

recorded are included. Since multiple CFs can be recorded for a single collision, the same incidents may be included

in analysis of more than one CF.

For ease of analysis and interpretation RSA often organises CFs into groupings. A complete list of all CFs and their

groupings may be found in section Contributory Factor Groupings.


AP

PEN

DIC

ES

4.2 Mosaic Public Sector

This section provides information on all of the Mosaic Types and more detailed analysis of the specific Types

identified as being of interest to Suffolk. More information on what Mosaic is can be found in 4.1.1.1 on page 64.

4.2.1 Complete list of Mosaic Types

Below is a complete list of all the Mosaic Types, with descriptions, shown in the Mosaic Group to which they belong.

Group Description Type Description

A Country Living A01 Rural Vogue

A02 Scattered Homesteads

A03 Wealthy Landowners

A04 Village Retirement

B Prestige Positions B05 Empty-Nest Adventure

B06 Bank of Mum and Dad

B07 Alpha Families

B08 Premium Fortunes

B09 Diamond Days

C City Prosperity C10 World-Class Wealth

C11 Penthouse Chic

C12 Metro High-Flyers

C13 Uptown Elite

D Domestic Success D14 Cafes and Catchments

D15 Modern Parents

D16 Mid-Career Convention

D17 Thriving Independence

E Suburban Stability E18 Dependable Me

E19 Fledgling Free

E20 Boomerang Boarders

E21 Family Ties

F Senior Security F22 Legacy Elders

F23 Solo Retirees

F24 Bungalow Heaven

F25 Classic Grandparents

G Rural Reality G26 Far-Flung Outposts

G27 Outlying Seniors

G28 Local Focus

G29 Satellite Settlers

H Aspiring Homemakers H30 Affordable Fringe

H31 First-Rung Futures

H32 Flying Solo

H33 New Foundations

H34 Contemporary Starts

H35 Primary Ambitions

I Urban Cohesion I36 Cultural Comfort

I37 Community Elders

I38 Asian Heritage

I39 Ageing Access

J Rental Hubs J40 Career Builders

J41 Central Pulse

J42 Learners & Earners

J43 Student Scene

J44 Flexible Workforce

J45 Bus-Route Renters

K Modest Traditions K46 Self Supporters


AP

PEN

DIC

ES

K47 Offspring Overspill

K48 Down-to-Earth Owners

L Transient Renters L49 Disconnected Youth

L50 Renting a Room

L51 Make Do & Move On

L52 Midlife Stopgap

M Family Basics M53 Budget Generations

M54 Childcare Squeeze

M55 Families with Needs

M56 Solid Economy

N Vintage Value N57 Seasoned Survivors

N58 Aided Elderly

N59 Pocket Pensions

N60 Dependent Greys

N61 Estate Veterans

O Municipal Challenge O62 Low Income Workers

O63 Streetwise Singles

O64 High Rise Residents

O65 Crowded Kaleidoscope

O66 Inner City Stalwarts


AP

PEN

DIC

ES

4.2.2 Profile and distribution for selected Mosaic Types

The table below shows Mosaic Types identified by socio-demographic profiling of the resident casualties and

resident drivers sections of the report, with some of the main characteristics of these Types. These can be used to

create a picture of the target audience in terms of economic and educational position; family life; and transport

preferences including mileage and car ownership. This information is invaluable for understanding target audiences

and knowing how to communicate with them.

Figure 77 shows Suffolk’s LSOAs colour coded by dominant Mosaic Type. The four Types from the above table are

shown in the map. Rural Vogue (Type A01) are dominant across a large area of Mid Suffolk including the areas of

Great Ashfield, Gislingham, Palgrave and Stonham Aspal. They are also dominant to the west of Framlingham, the

area to the South of Beccles, the area around Great Wratting and in the villages to the south east of Woodbridge.

Outlying Seniors (Type G27) are dominant throughout Suffolk, such as south west of Brandon, Icklingham, villages

to the south east of Bury St Edmunds, south of Needham Market, Kessingland, Wrentham, Saxmundham and

Halesworth. Local Focus (Type G28) dominate in Bungay, north of Southwold, Leiston, Wickham Market, south east

of Brandon, Exning, Acton and Bildeston. Midlife Stopgap (Type L52) are dominant in parts of more urban areas

such as Ipswich, Bury St Edmunds, Newmarket, Beccles, Sudbury, Felixstowe and Lowestoft.

A01 Rural Vogue

G27 Outlying Seniors

G28 Local Focus

L52 Midlife Stopgap

These communities consist of country-loving families pursuing a rural idyll in comfortable village homes while commuting some distance to work. These families live in detached housing and have good incomes. As well as commuting, these families use their car to travel to the nearest school.

These communities consist of pensioners in inexpensive housing in out of the way locations. They tend to have low incomes and shop locally. Due to their remote location, they own a car. They feel that there are problems in their area with speeding traffic.

These communities consist of rural families in affordable village homes who are reliant on the local economy for jobs. They tend to work in skilled trades and live a long distance from towns and cities. They often shop locally. Car ownership is high in these communities.

These communities consist of homesharers and singles privately renting affordable homes. Their average age is 45 and they tend to not have children. They are mostly in employment. Car ownership and mileage driven is slightly lower amongst these communities due to their more urban location.


AP

PEN

DIC

ES

Figure 78 - Visualisations of dominant Mosaic Types

A01 Rural Vogue G27 Outlying Seniors

G28 Local Focus L52 Midlife Stopgap

Figure 77 - Suffolk's dominant Mosaic Types by LSOA.


AP

PEN

DIC

ES

4.3 Data Tables

All Casualties – Suffolk Roads (3.1.4.1)

KSI KSI Total Overall Total

Year Fatal Serious Slight

2011 30 296 326 2204 2530

2012 24 338 362 2143 2505

2013 25 266 291 1923 2214

2014 30 212 242 2107 2349

2015 33 174 207 1741 1948

Overall Total 142 1286 1428 10118 11546

Senior Casualties – Suffolk Roads (3.1.4.3)



2011 5 35 40 199 239

2012 6 42 48 196 244

2013 4 41 45 182 227

2014 6 38 44 231 275

2015 8 22 30 198 228

Overall Total 29 178 207 1006 1213

Pedal Cycle User Casualties – Suffolk Roads (3.1.4.2)



2011 1 41 42 185 227

2012 2 41 43 181 224

2013 0 39 39 170 209

2014 1 26 27 205 232

2015 1 19 20 169 189

Overall Total 5 166 171 910 1081

All Collisions – Suffolk Roads (3.1.3)



2011 28 270 298 1553 1851

2012 23 299 322 1497 1819

2013 21 231 252 1415 1667

2014 29 199 228 1533 1761

2015 28 160 188 1298 1486

Overall Total 129 1159 1288 7296 8584


AP

PEN

DIC

ES

Collisions by hour of the day (Weekdays) 2010-2014 – Suffolk roads (3.1.3.1)


Hour Fatal Serious Slight

Midnight 1 5 6 37 43

1AM 2 7 9 20 29

2AM 0 4 4 18 22

3AM 0 1 1 10 11

4AM 0 7 7 14 21

5AM 0 7 7 36 43

6AM 1 28 29 122 151

7AM 2 46 48 359 407

8AM 2 66 68 601 669

9AM 1 34 35 298 333

10AM 6 41 47 260 307

11AM 5 33 38 314 352

Noon 5 52 57 311 368

1PM 11 36 47 327 374

2PM 9 57 66 313 379

3PM 6 75 81 464 545

4PM 7 80 87 521 608

5PM 7 76 83 569 652

6PM 5 53 58 360 418

7PM 7 45 52 220 272

8PM 5 29 34 136 170

9PM 2 20 22 126 148

10PM 4 29 33 118 151

11PM 4 19 23 70 93

Overall Total 92 850 942 5624 6566


AP

PEN

DIC

ES Collisions by hour of the day (Weekends) 2010-2014 – Suffolk roads (3.1.3.1)


Hour Fatal Serious Slight

Midnight 2 15 17 39 56

1AM 1 7 8 25 33

2AM 0 4 4 27 31

3AM 2 9 11 22 33

4AM 2 6 8 15 23

5AM 1 2 3 8 11

6AM 0 4 4 20 24

7AM 0 10 10 38 48

8AM 1 6 7 62 69

9AM 0 14 14 90 104

10AM 2 18 20 103 123

11AM 2 21 23 125 148

Noon 1 29 30 143 173

1PM 4 17 21 138 159

2PM 4 28 32 119 151

3PM 0 21 21 125 146

4PM 2 21 23 118 141

5PM 2 20 22 101 123

6PM 4 12 16 98 114

7PM 1 9 10 54 64

8PM 3 10 13 60 73

9PM 3 12 15 55 70

10PM 0 13 13 48 61

11PM 1 12 13 39 52

Overall Total 38 320 358 1672 2030

Collisions on urban roads in Suffolk (3.2.1.3)



2011 4 103 107 681 788

2012 4 116 120 679 799

2013 7 84 91 637 728

2014 4 75 79 651 730

2015 6 58 64 558 622

Overall Total 25 436 461 3206 3667


AP

PEN

DIC

ES

Collisions on urban built-up roads in Suffolk (3.2.1.4)



2011 3 100 103 653 756

2012 3 114 117 657 774

2013 5 82 87 614 701

2014 4 74 78 633 711

2015 6 55 61 548 609

Overall Total 21 425 446 3105 3551

Collisions involving factors 306 and/or 307 (speed related) on urban built-up roads in Suffolk (3.2.1.4)



2011 1 9 10 42 52

2012 0 4 4 43 47

2013 2 9 11 25 36

2014 1 5 6 34 40

2015 0 4 4 36 40

Overall Total 4 31 35 180 215

Collisions on urban non built-up roads in Suffolk (3.2.1.4)



2011 1 3 4 28 32

2012 1 2 3 22 25

2013 2 2 4 23 27

2014 0 1 1 18 19

2015 0 3 3 10 13


Collisions involving factors 306 and/or 307 (speed related) on urban non built-up roads in Suffolk

(3.2.1.4)



2011 0 0 0 3 3

2012 0 1 1 0 1

2013 1 0 1 2 3

2014 0 0 0 3 3

2015 0 2 2 0 2



AP

PEN

DIC

ES Collisions on rural roads in Suffolk (3.2.2.3)



2011 24 167 191 872 1063

2012 19 183 202 818 1020

2013 14 147 161 778 939

2014 25 124 149 882 1031

2015 22 102 124 740 864

Overall Total 104 723 827 4090 4917

Collisions on rural built-up roads in Suffolk (3.2.2.4)



2011 6 51 57 304 361

2012 6 68 74 275 349

2013 3 52 55 279 334

2014 8 36 44 338 382

2015 5 30 35 241 276

Overall Total 28 237 265 1437 1702

Collisions involving factors 306 and/or 307 (speed related) on rural built-up roads in Suffolk (3.2.2.4)



2011 1 11 12 45 57

2012 1 9 10 27 37

2013 1 7 8 33 41

2014 2 9 11 40 51

2015 3 6 9 27 36


Collisions on rural non built-up roads in Suffolk (3.2.2.4)



2011 18 116 134 568 702

2012 13 115 128 543 671

2013 11 95 106 499 605

2014 17 88 105 544 649

2015 17 72 89 499 588

Overall Total 76 486 562 2653 3215


AP

PEN

DIC

ES

Collisions involving factors 306 and/or 307 (speed related) on rural non built-up roads in Suffolk

(3.2.2.4)



2011 4 30 34 102 136

2012 1 24 25 83 108

2013 2 14 16 67 83

2014 4 12 16 75 91

2015 6 13 19 53 72

Overall Total 17 93 110 380 490

Collisions involving factors 408, 409 and/or 410 (control errors) - Suffolk roads (3.1.5.2)

Collisions involving factors 306 and/or 307 (speed choice) - Suffolk roads (3.1.5.1)



2011 6 50 56 192 248

2012 2 38 40 153 193

2013 6 30 36 127 163

2014 7 26 33 152 185

2015 9 25 34 116 150

Overall Total 30 169 199 740 939

Collisions involving factors 601 and/or 602 (unsafe behaviour) - Suffolk roads (3.1.5.3)



2011 3 56 59 230 289

2012 2 44 46 214 260

2013 12 40 52 202 254

2014 3 37 40 250 290

2015 3 24 27 183 210

Overall Total 23 201 224 1079 1303



2011 9 73 82 321 403

2012 8 67 75 288 363

2013 10 36 46 269 315

2014 12 50 62 311 373

2015 12 41 53 289 342

Overall Total 51 267 318 1478 1796


AP

PEN

DIC

ES

4.4 Contributory Factor Groupings

Injudicious Action Driver Errors or

Reactions Driver Impairment or

Distraction Behaviour or Inexperience

Other

Traffic Contraventions Manoeuvre Errors Substance Impairments Nervous Behaviour Vehicle Defects

Disobeyed automatic traffic signal

Poor turn or manoeuvre Impaired by alcohol Nervous, uncertain or panic

Tyres illegal, defective or under-inflated

Disobeyed double white lines

Failed to signal or misleading signal

Impaired by drugs (illicit or medicinal)

Learner or inexperienced driver/rider

Defective lights or indicators

Disobeyed ‘Give way’ or ‘Stop’ signs or markings

Passing too close to cyclist, horse rider or pedestrian

Inexperience of driving on the left

Defective brakes

Disobeyed pedestrian crossing facility

Unfamiliar with model of vehicle

Defective steering or suspension

Illegal turn or direction of travel

Defective or missing mirrors

Overloaded or poorly loaded vehicle or trailer

Speed Choices Control Errors Distraction Unsafe Behaviour Road Surface

Exceeding speed limit Sudden braking Driver using mobile phone

Aggressive driving Poor or defective road surface

Travelling too fast for conditions

Swerved Distraction in vehicle Careless, reckless or in a hurry

Deposit on road (e.g. oil, mud, chippings)

Loss of control Distraction outside vehicle

Slippery road (due to weather)

Close Following Observation Error Health Impairments Pedal Cycle Behaviour Affected Vision

Following too close Failed to look properly Uncorrected, defective eyesight

Vehicle travelling along pavement

Stationary or parked vehicle(s)

Failed to judge other person’s path or speed

Illness or disability, mental or physical

Cyclist entering road from pavement

Vegetation

Not displaying lights at night or in poor visibility

Road layout (e.g. bend, winding road, hill crest)

Cyclist wearing dark clothing at night

Buildings, road signs, street furniture

Junction Errors Fatigue Impairment Pedestrian Behaviour Dazzling headlights

Junction overshoot Fatigue Crossing road masked by stationary or parked vehicle

Dazzling sun

Junction restart (moving off at junction)

Failed to look properly Rain, sleet, snow or fog

Failed to judge vehicle’s path or speed

Spray from other vehicles

Wrong use of pedestrian crossing facility

Visor or windscreen dirty or scratched

Dangerous action in carriageway (e.g. playing)

Vehicle blind spot

Careless, reckless or in a hurry

Impaired by alcohol Impaired by drugs (illicit

or medicinal)

Pedestrian wearing dark clothing at night

Disability or illness, mental or physical


AP

PEN

DIC

ES

4.5 Suffolk Map

Figure 79 is a map of Suffolk and the district authorities within it. It is intended to be used as a reference alongside

the thematic maps within the report.

Figure 79 - Suffolk and its district authorities


AP

PEN

DIC

ES

4.6 List of figures

Figure 1 - Annual average resident casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population – Suffolk and comparator authorities ........... 7

Figure 2 - Annual average resident casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population – Suffolk and districtsFigure 3 - Annual average

resident casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population – Suffolk and comparator authorities...................................................... 7

Figure 4 - Annual average resident casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population – Suffolk and districts .................................... 8

Figure 5 - Resident casualties home location by LSOA. Casualties per year per 100,000 population (2011-2015)Figure 6 - Annual

average resident casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population – Suffolk and districts................................................................. 8

Figure 7 - Resident casualties home location by LSOA. Casualties per year per 100,000 population (2011-2015)........................... 9

Figure 8 - Suffolk resident casualties by age group (2011-2015)Figure 9 - Resident casualties home location by LSOA. Casualties

per year per 100,000 population (2011-2015) .................................................................................................................................. 9

Figure 10 - Suffolk resident casualties, by year and severity (2006-2015) ...................................................................................... 10

Figure 11 - Suffolk resident casualties by age group (2011-2015) .................................................................................................. 11

Figure 12 - Resident casualties by age group, indexed by population (2011-2015) ........................................................................ 11

Figure 13 - Suffolk resident casualties by Mosaic Type (2011-2015) .............................................................................................. 12

Figure 14 - Resident casualties by Index of Multiple Deprivation (2011-2015) ............................................................................... 13

Figure 15 - Annual average resident pedal cycle user casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population – Suffolk and comparator

authorities ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 14

Figure 16 - Annual average resident pedal cycle user casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population – Suffolk and its districts . 14

Figure 17 - Resident pedal cycle user casualties by MSOA. Annual average casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population ....... 15

Figure 18 - Suffolk resident pedal cycle user casualties, by year and severity (2006-2015) ........................................................... 16

Figure 19 - Suffolk child resident pedal cycle user casualties, by year and severity (2006-2015) ................................................... 17

Figure 20 - Suffolk adult resident pedal cycle user casualties, by year and severity (2006-2015) .................................................. 17

Figure 21 - Suffolk resident pedal cycle user casualties by Mosaic Type (2011-2015) .................................................................... 18

Figure 22 - Annual average senior resident casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 senior population – Suffolk and comparator

authorities ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 19

Figure 23 - Annual average senior resident casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 senior population – Suffolk and its districts ...... 19

Figure 24 - Senior resident casualties by MSOA (2011-2015). Annual average casualties per 100,000 senior population ............ 20

Figure 25 - Suffolk senior resident casualties, by year and severity (2006-2015) ........................................................................... 21

Figure 26 - Suffolk senior resident casualties by road user type (2011-2015) ................................................................................ 22

Figure 27 - Percentage of Suffolk senior resident casualties by type compared to all adult casualties and GB senior casualties

(2011-2015) ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 22

Figure 28 - Suffolk senior resident casualties by Mosaic Type (2011-2015) .................................................................................... 23

Figure 29 - Senior resident casualties by Index of Multiple Deprivation (2011-2015) .................................................................... 24

Figure 30 - Annual average resident drivers (2011-2015) per 100,000 adult population – Suffolk and comparator authorities ... 25

Figure 31 - Annual average resident drivers (2011-2015) per 100,000 adult population – Suffolk and its districts ....................... 26

Figure 32 - Annual average resident drivers (2011-2015) per 100,000 adult population, by LSOA ................................................ 27

Figure 33 - Suffolk resident drivers, by year and severity (2006-2015) ........................................................................................... 28


AP

PEN

DIC

ES

Figure 34 - Suffolk resident drivers by Mosaic Type (2011-2015), indexed by annual average mileage ....................................... 29

Figure 35 - Resident drivers by Index of Multiple Deprivation (2011-2015) .................................................................................. 30

Figure 36 - Annual average resident motorcycle riders (2011-2015) per 100,000 adult population – Suffolk and comparator

authorities ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 31

Figure 37 - Annual average resident motorcycle riders (2011-2015) per 100,000 adult population – Suffolk and its districts ..... 31

Figure 38 - Annual average resident motorcycle riders per 100,000 adult population, by MSOA (2011-2015) ............................. 32

Figure 39 - Suffolk resident motorcycle riders, by year and severity (2006-2015) ......................................................................... 33

Figure 40 - Suffolk's resident motorcycle riders - related casualties (2011-2015).......................................................................... 34

Figure 41 - Annual average young adult resident drivers (2011-2015) per 100,000 young adult population – Suffolk and

comparators ................................................................................................................................................................................... 34

Figure 42 - Annual average young adult resident drivers (2011-2015) per 100,000 young adult population – Suffolk and its districts

........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 35

Figure 43 - Annual average young resident motor vehicle drivers per 10,000 population (of 16-24 year olds), by MSOA (2011-

2015) .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 36

Figure 44 - Suffolk young adult resident drivers, by year and severity (2006-2015) ...................................................................... 37

Figure 45 - Suffolk young adult resident drivers by Mosaic Group (2011-2015), indexed by annual average mileage .................. 38

Figure 46 - Suffolk young adult resident drivers by Index of Multiple Deprivation (2011-2015).................................................... 38

Figure 47 - Injured Passengers in Suffolk's young resident drivers’ vehicles compared to all adult drivers (2011-2015) .............. 39

Figure 48 - Annual average collisions (2011-2015) per 10km of road ............................................................................................ 41

Figure 49 - Annual average collisions (2011-2015) per 10km of road, by LSOA ............................................................................. 42

Figure 50 - Suffolk collisions, by year and severity (2006-2015) ..................................................................................................... 43

Figure 51 - Collisions on Suffolk's roads by hour of day - weekdays (2011-2015) .......................................................................... 43

Figure 52 - Collisions on Suffolk's roads by hour of day - weekends (2011-2015) .......................................................................... 44

Figure 53 - Casualties on Suffolk's roads, by year and severity (2006-2015) .................................................................................. 45

Figure 54 - Pedal cycle user casualties on Suffolk's roads, by year and severity (2006-2015) ........................................................ 45

Figure 55 - Senior casualties on Suffolk's roads, by year (2006-2015)............................................................................................ 46

Figure 56 - Collisions on Suffolk's roads where CF306 and/or CF307 were recorded (2006-2015) ................................................ 47

Figure 57 - Collisions where CF306 and/or CF307 were recorded (2011-2015) – Suffolk and comparator authorities ................. 48

Figure 58 - Collisions where CF306 and/or CF307 were recorded (2011-2015) – Suffolk and its districts ..................................... 48

Figure 59 - Collisions on Suffolk's roads where CF408, CF409 and/or CF410 were recorded (2006-2015) .................................... 49

Figure 60 - Collisions where CF408, CF409 and/or CF410 were attributed (2011-2015) – Suffolk and comparator authorities .... 50

Figure 61 - Collisions where CF408, CF409 and/or CF410 were attributed (2011-2015) – Suffolk and its districts ........................ 50

Figure 62 - Collisions on Suffolk's roads where CF601 and/or CF602 were recorded (2006-2015) ................................................ 51

Figure 63 - Collisions where CF601 and/or CF602 were recorded (2011-2015) – Suffolk and comparator authorities ................. 52

Figure 64 - Collisions where CF601 and/or CF602 were recorded (2011-2015) – Suffolk and its district authorities .................... 52

Figure 65 - Annual average collisions on urban roads (2011-2015) per 10km of urban road......................................................... 54

Figure 66 - Collisions on Suffolk's urban roads, by year and severity (2006-2015) ........................................................................ 55


AP

PEN

DIC

ES Figure 67 - Collisions on Suffolk's urban built-up roads, by year and severity (2006-2015) ........................................................... 56

Figure 68 - Collisions on Suffolk's urban built-up roads where CF306 and/or CF307 were recorded (2006-2015) ........................ 57

Figure 69 - Collisions on Suffolk's urban non-built-up roads, by year and severity (2006-2015) .................................................... 57

Figure 70 - Collisions on Suffolk's Urban Non Built-up roads where CF306 and/or CF307 were recorded (2006-2015) ................ 58

Figure 71 - Annual average collisions on rural roads (2011-2015) per 10km of rural road ............................................................. 59

Figure 72 - Collisions on Suffolk's rural roads, by year and severity (2006-2015) ........................................................................... 60

Figure 73 - Collisions on Suffolk's rural built-up roads, by year and severity (2006-2015) ............................................................. 61

Figure 74 - Collisions on Suffolk's rural built-up roads where CF306 and/or CF307 were recorded (2006-2015) .......................... 62

Figure 75 - Collisions on Suffolk's rural non-built-up roads, by year and severity (2006-2015) ...................................................... 62

Figure 76 - Collisions on Suffolk's rural non built-up roads where CF306 and/or CF307 were recorded (2006-2015) ................... 63

Figure 77 - Suffolk's dominant Mosaic Types by LSOA. ................................................................................................................... 71

Figure 78 - Visualisations of dominant Mosaic Types ..................................................................................................................... 71

Figure 79 - Suffolk and its district authorities ................................................................................................................................. 79

Documents

AREA PROFILE - Suffolk · 2016-11-07 · Area Profiles from Road Safety Analysis (RSA) provide overviews of road safety performance within specific local areas. This profile delivers